So now I will go through the book page by page, focusing on discrepancies between the illustrations in the original and those of the later editions. Much of this part of the 2012 is is in Google Books (which also has Greer's introduction), starting with the “Author’s Preface”, at https://books.google.com/books?id=N_...skills&f=false. So if you want, feel free to follow along.
A charming feature of Wirth’s 1927 text is that the first letter of each chapter is enclosed within a tarot-like scene, in the style of medieval illuminated manuscripts. These could not have been reproduced in the translation, considering that the initial letters of the English will be different. Unfortunately, the post-1927 French editions omit these illustrations as well. As an example I reproduce the first one, at the beginning of Chapter One.
Above the dedication “a la memoire de Stanislas de Guaita” is an illustration that Wirth repeats at the very end of the book. It has 22 images, so it is obviously meant to illustrate the 22 cards of the tarot. They are another version of the cards, one of many that he uses throughout the book, of which at least one other, the "astronomical tarot," is his design. In reading the book, I think the implication is, one will come to understand what these symbols mean in relation to the 22 arcana (or “arcanas,” as the English translation has it).
In the post-1927 editions, both French and English, this illustration only appears at the end of the book (p. 222 of the 2012, p. 214 of the 1985, p. 363 of the 2014 French). So you don’t get the pleasure of relating these images to the 22 arcana as you go through the book. The 2012 actually outdoes the others by its poor quality reproduction (p. 222):
That is even more mysterious than Wirth’s original. However it is not the sort of mystery we really need. In the Appendix Wirth calls these images a "symbolic alphabet" of "ideograms". They can even be used instead of the colored printed cards, by copying the symbols onto numbered pieces of paper, an activity he recommends so as to personalize the use of the cards. Of course with the 2012's version, that would not be possible, given how much is missing.
At the end of the dedication (the "Author's Preface") is this illustration:
It is not present in any of the later editions (except in the Appendix). Part of the intent in placing it here might be to announce the Kabbalistic orientation of what is to come. Also, as I read in the Appendix (p. 217 of 2012, pp. 208-9 of 1985, pp. 352-3 of 2014 French), de Guaita invented this emblem.
I continue. The 2012 on p. xxv (the end of the “Author’s Introduction”. omitted from Google Books) has a black and white reproduction of a scene of people playing cards in a tent. The cards are not tarot cards, but ones with ordinary French suits, of the sort that were invented around 1470. It is not in in Wirth’s original, nor that of the later French editions. Nothing is said about this illustration. It obviously would look better in color.
It seems to be a substitute for an illustration in the French editions, equally non-Wirthian, another of people playing cards. That woodcut is identified next to it as “La Consultation, bois gravé, fin du XVe siècle” (The Consultation, woodcut, end of 16th century). There are pictures of it on the Web; here is one,
. It is the so-called “card players” of Israhel van Meckenem, c. 1500. I would guess that they are playing a card game, because there is a stack of cards next to each of them. But I suppose it could be the unused part of a deck during a reading, going one card at a time rather than in a "spread" (which Etteilla says he invented), and the scene done in a deliberately ambiguous way in case the Inquisition came knocking.
These illustrations are at the end of the “Avant-propos” (or "Author’s Introduction”). Wirth’s original also ends with an illustration, also on the subject of ordinary playing cards: it is of the four objects on the Bateleur’s (Magician’s) table, symbolic of the four suits.
There is nothing in the “Avant-Propos” about such cards, but there is in Chapter One that follows. They were invented by the Italians, he says, toward the end of the 14th century (at that time the similar “Mamluk” cards of Egypt apparently were not known). They divided into Bâtons, Coupes, Epées, and Deniers. In French “bâton” means “staff” or “stick”. The English translation has “wand”; but Wirth does not use the term corresponding to the English “wand”, i.e. “baguette”, although he does add that the “baguette magique” is one type of Baton. Likewise “denier” just means “coin”, not “pentacle,” as the English translation has it; but he does say that this “denier” is a “disque pentaculaire,” using the adjectival form of “pentacle”. According to the OED “pentacle” comes from the Middle French, meaning “talisman, most often in the form of a five-pointed star,” first attested in 1555; it is most typically in the shape of a pentagram enclosed by a circle. That is indeed what Wirth depicts. Such images were not, to be sure, on the cards from the beginning. The other suits are Cups and Swords. These are indeed what, in similar Italian, the suits were called before the tarot sequence was added. This emblem is also discussed on p. 364 of the 2014 French, underneath the emblem. The discussion, but without the emblem, is on p. 222 of the 2012 and p. 214 of the 1985. the two paragraphs about the "56 playing cards."
Chapter One, too, ends with an illustration; there is no image in the corresponding place in the later editions, in either language, nor any presentation of it in the Appendix of any later edition:
Again, there is no connection that I see to the chapter just ended. But this perfectly symmetrical face, looking at us in the eye as though about to speak, seems a kind of foretaste of the subject of the next chapter, which has to do with the “signs revealed by the secrets of the tarot”, in particular its symmetries taken as a whole. He arranges the tarot sequence in a circle and then into two rows that also form a circular pattern:
This particular image is included in the post-1927 versions; it serves to present patterns in the cards. But also indicates what the previous two lines of symbols, at the very beginning, correspond to in the tarot. That reference, of course, is lost on the reader if the previous sequence of symbols is not there.
At the end of this second chapter is another image, absent from the later editions, except in the Appendix. This one is from alchemy; I recognize it as the “Winged Hermaphrodite on the Winged Globe of Chaos” of the Victorium Spagyricum of 1625 .
This image again seems to relate to what follows, which ties the Kabbalist “tree of the sefirot” not only to the tarot sequence but also to the planets and metals. The alchemical emblem has symbols of the planets and an arrangement into three vertical columns, with ten items in all. It is a kind of alchemical variant on the Kabbalist “tree”. This alchemical emblem is discussed further in the Appendix, on p. 213 of the 2012, p.205 of the 1985, and p. 345 of the 2014 French. In the translation of the Appendix discussion, the metal "Bronze" is attributed to both Jupiter and Venus. The French has "Etain" (Tin) for Jupiter and "Cuivre" (Copper) for Venus.
This chapter, too, ends with an image not present in the later editions. This time it is of a mermaid moon-goddess (Wirth in the Appendix calls her a “sirene”) praying between two unicorns. It is the theme of “the lady and the unicorn” that we know from Renaissance tapestries, with a twist. The gesture of prayer upwards is something different. Among other things, it seems to announce the astronomical theme of the next chapter.
.The discussion in the Appendix is on p. 121 of the 2012, p. 213 of the 1985, and p. 362 of the 2014 French.
The next chapter, on “The Astronomical Tarot,” gives the 2012 publisher a chance to throw in some extra illustrations not in Wirth; if you see one that actually has stars in it, it is not Wirth’s. It, too, ends with an illustration. This one in fact sums up the chapter and therefore is reproduced in the later editions. However errors have crept in, starting in the French editions, made worse in the English. The errors I am going to discuss have already been pointed out on the Web at http://www.rennashesso.com/rennashes...tro-Tarot.html. However the author did not know how far back they went. To clear Wirth of any blame, here is his original; it shows two groups of constellations, the zodiac on the outside and some other constellations closer to the Pole Star on the inside.
And now here is the corresponding English version (the same in 1985 and 2012):
As you can see, the number 12 has been given to three constellations: Perseus, Gemini, and Cancer (if you have trouble finding them, the website just linked to has arrows pointing to them). Fortunately, on the facing page there is a chart with the correct numbering: 12 to Perseus, 19 to Gemini, 18 to Cancer. The assignments of 18 and 19 are familiar ones. 12 is unique to Wirth’s special “astronomical tarot". Besides this star-map, he gives us black and white sketches of some of the individual cards at appropriate places in the book (at least one of which, for the 9th card, the post-1927 editions neglect to reproduce).
This numbering errors originated in the French editions, starting in 1966 (I checked in a copy I got from Interlibrary Loan); it has been continually reprinted since. The English version only added a few spelling errors. In image 9, “Headsman” should be “Herdsman”. And the English for “Cassiopée” is not “Cassiopea” but “Cassiopeia”. The constellation named "Herdsman" is that usually called Boötes, Greek for herdsman or plowman, literally "ox-driver" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes). In his "astronomical" version of the card, shown at the end of the section discussing card 9 (the Hermit), he actually uses the title "Boötes." This illustration, the only one of that card, has been omitted from all the later editions, but I will give it when I get to that page of the book.
If you are wondering what a “Coachman”, Cocher, is doing with a goat on his back, that is because the constellation of Auriga, besides “Goatherd,” was also known as the Charioteer, identified with several famous ones, all sons of various Greek gods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriga...nstellation%29). One might have expected that this Charioteer would be given the number 7, but such is not the case.
Chapter 5, “Notions of Symbolism: Forms and Colours”, by its visual nature, is almost made to order for errors in later editions. They do mount up.
Wirth’s primary forms are the circle, the cross, the triangle and the square. After exhibiting them, he has a charming illustration of a lady on a cloud drawing them, omitted from the 2012 but not the 1985.
Then the 2012 makes another unique blunder, this time not just of omission, in substituting a drawing that appears only in the Appendix (p. 211 of the 2012, p. 203 of the 1985, p. 341 of the 2014 French) for the one that is actually in this place in the text. Here is the original (which is also in the French editions and the 1985), followed by the 2012’s substitution.
In the Appendix, Wirth says of the one with legs that it is a dragon or a crocodile. However in Chapter 5 he is talking about a drawing of a serpent in an ancient text. Moreover, it is one that has some Greek words inside, something like En To Pan, which I suppose means“One the All”, as Wirth says, or "One is All", as the translation says). Substituting a drawing without these words and of a different animal is not helpful.
Two pages later in the same chapter, the 2012 book (unlike the 1985 or the French editions) commits another error of omission. In all but the 2012, there is a list of planets plus a symbol that With invented as a way of symbolizing all of them together. The symbol is important, among other things, to convey how the planets act as a group, especially in a negative way as the “seven deadly sins”, something he talks about in the section on the Devil card (p 115 of 2012, p. 123 of 1985, p. 202 of 2014 French), and in the Appendix (p. 212 of 2012, p. 204 of the 1985, and p. 343 of the 2014 French); in both places he shows us the symbol--except in 2012. The 2012 (uniquely) omits this symbol everywhere it occurs--as though it were too devilish to see the light of day! Below is the original, followed by the 2012 translation.
The 2012, again uniquely, dispenses with this left-right chart and instead presents only the Jupiter side, after which comes the discussion of Mercury.
Only on the next page does the 2012 presents the Saturn part of the chart (you can see that page here), totally detached from what it had been contrasted with.. The visual contrast has been lost.
Another omission, again uniquely in the 2012, is of a symbol of Wirth's invention that combines Sulphur and Mercury, shown below:
In the 2012, the text in English is on p. 49, second paragraph, corresponding to p. 52 of the 1980 and p. 99 of the 2014 French. The symbol has disappeared. There is also one translation or spelling error; "Huile ou Baume de Soufre, Humide radical" is not "Oil or Sulfur, Humidity" but "Oil or Balm of Sulphur, radical Humid". The French is "Humide", probably meaning "wetness"..
This mysterious image is fully explained on p.215 of the 2012; the only problem is that it has again been omitted. Only if you have the 1985 edition, p. 206, can you tell what it is that is being explained. (or p. 348 of the 2014 French, although it should have gone one paragraph higher).
You will have noticed that this alchemical discussion is extremely condensed and precise. Any slip in the translation (such as the “Venus of bronze” nonsense (which can be seen on the left of the 2012 pages earlier in this post) will lead to confusion. In this section of the text it is particularly important to have at hand the French text, of which the current reprints of the 1966 are sufficient.
The next chapter is "The Tarot and the Hebrew Alphabet," which discusses visual parallels between the arcana and the corresponding Hebrew letters, starting with the Bateleur (Magician) as Aleph). At the end, the original has a winged disc with serpents on either side of the disc (Wirth later calls it a "winged globe"). I cannot see how it relates to the Hebrew letters, but it might relate to what comes next, his presentation of the 22 arcana, as he sees the image as a symbol of alchemical sublimation, part of the "great work." Wirth discusses the emblem in the Appendix, and all editions show the image (p. 116 of the 2012, p. 207 of the 1980, and p. 330 of the 2014 French).
No comments:
Post a Comment